The European Commission’s $1.45 billion fine of Intel should be struck down or severely scaled back because the commission ignored crucial evidence, failed to prove the chip maker stifled competition, and never established that any consumers were harmed, according to a summary of Intel’s appeal in the case.

The two-page summary posted sometime after Friday on the Web page of the European appellate court, known as the Court of First Instance in Luxembourg, provides the first detailed public disclosure of Intel’s defense in the case, which has been kept substantially secret since Intel was fined on May 13.

European regulators have accused the Santa Clara company of two types of anti-competitive practices involving its microprocessors, the brainy chips that power personal computers and many other devices.

One accusation was that Intel gave rebates to computer manufacturers, including Hewlett-Packard, on condition they buy all or almost all of their microprocessors from Intel, instead of Intel’s main microprocessor competitor, Advanced Micro Devices of Sunnyvale. The second claim was that Intel made direct payments to computer makers to halt or delay the launch of products containing AMD’s microprocessors.

But in the summary of its appeal, Intel contends the fine — the largest the commission has ever issued against a company — “is manifestly disproportionate given that the commission fails to establish any consumer harm or foreclosure of the competitors.”

Intel claims the commission— the EU’s executive arm — never determined that Intel’s rebates had actually limited competition or that Intel had ever implemented the rebates in Europe. In addition, the summary said, the commission failed to take into account the fact that “one of Intel’s competitors” — presumably AMD — substantially increased its market share and profits during the period of Intel’s alleged abuse, and that any problems the competitor had with computer makers “was the result of its own shortcomings.”

Moreover, the summary accused the commission of having “materially infringed Intel’s rights of defence” by failing to grant it an oral hearing when new allegations against the company arose and downplaying documents proving Intel’s innocence.

As an example, the summary said the commission didn’t “make proper note of its meeting with a key witness from one of Intel’s customers, who was highly likely to have given exculpatory evidence.” That apparently referred to an August 2006 meeting between commission investigators and a Dell executive, according to previously leaked details of a report by the European Union’s ombudsman, P. Nikiforos Diamandouros, which reportedly criticizes the handling of the Intel case.

Based on the terse summary of Intel’s appeal, it is difficult to assess what impact it might have on the Court of First Instance, which is expected to take two years or more to review the matter, said Simon Holmes, a London-based expert on European antitrust cases. Although the appellate court has overturned some commission antitrust decisions, it sometimes defers to the commission’s decisions “in complex economic cases,” he said.

Intel spokesman Chuck Mulloy declined to comment on the summary. But AMD spokesman Michael Silverman said, “Intel has failed to convince any antitrust regulator anywhere in the world that their business practices are legal and pro-consumer for one simple reason — Intel breaks the law.”

Regulatory authorities in Japan and South Korea previously have accused Intel of engaging in anti-competitive practices. In addition, the New York attorney general and the U.S. Federal Trade Commission have announced they are investigating Intel’s practices. An antitrust suit filed by AMD against Intel is scheduled to go to trial in Delaware in March.

You would drive by it if you didn’t know what you were looking for. Tucked away in this Alameda neighborhood full of track houses and tidy lawns is the Evil Geniuses training facility. Unassuming on the outside, the beige-colored home hosts the e-sports organization’s “” team, one of the top squads in the world. Inside the living room, monitors and...

HAYWARD — When it comes to entering the professional world, Alex Baker says he and other Cal State East Bay staff members know how important it is to dress for success at job interviews, where appearances on paper and in person matter the most. For some students, particularly those facing food or housing issues, borrowing or buying clothes for that...